Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 7, pp 1177–1194 | Cite as

Thresholds and hotspots for shrub restoration following a heterogeneous megafire

  • Matthew J. Germino
  • David M. Barnard
  • Bill E. Davidson
  • Robert S. Arkle
  • David S. Pilliod
  • Matthew R. Fisk
  • Cara Applestein
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Reestablishing foundational plant species through aerial seeding is an essential yet challenging step for restoring the vast semiarid landscapes impacted by plant invasions and wildfire-regime shifts. A key component of the challenge stems from landscape variability and its effects on plant recovery.

Objectives

We assessed landscape correlates, thresholds, and tipping points for sagebrush presence from fine-scale sampling across a large, heterogeneous area burned the previous year, where we were able to quantify soil surface features that are typically occluded yet can strongly affect recovery patterns.

Methods

Hypothesis testing and binary-decision trees were used to evaluate factors affecting initial sagebrush establishment, using 2171 field plots (totaling ~ 2,000,000 m2 sampled) over a 113,000-ha region.

Results

Sagebrush established in 50% of plots where it was seeded, a > 12-fold greater establishment frequency than in unseeded areas. Sagebrush establishment was enhanced in threshold-like ways by elevation (> 1200 m ASL), topographic features that alter heatload and soil water, and by soil-surface features such as “fertile islands” that bore the imprint of pre-fire sagebrush. Sagebrush occupancy had a negative, linear relationship with exotic-annual grass cover and parabolic relationship with perennial bunchgrasses (optimal at 40% cover).

Conclusions

Our approach revealed interactive, ecological relationships such as novel soil-surface effects on first year establishment of sagebrush across the burned landscape, and identified “hot spots” for recovery. The approach could be expanded across sites and years to provide the information needed to explain past seeding successes or failures, and in designing treatments at the landscape scale.

Keywords

Sagebrush Restoration Landscape Legacies Fire Mixed model Classification tree 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by JFSP (Grant 16-1-03-13) with support from the Great Basin Landscape Conservation Cooperative, US Geological Survey (USGS) Fire program, USGS/BLM SageSuccess project and contribution of USGS data funded by the BLM’s ESR program. Cindy Fritz, Peter Torma, Cara Hastings and other BLM staff helped with planning, logistics, and comments on the research. The Soda Fire Field Crew assisted with field data collection. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Authors’ contributions

MG conceived of the project, obtained the funding, led the writing, and contributed to all phases of the work. DB performed the modeling and co-led the writing. RA, MF, CA, and BD assisted in designing the sampling plan; MF, CA, and BD led the field sampling and data organization. All authors contributed to writing and gave final approval for publication.

References

  1. Applestein C, Germino MJ, Fisk MJ (accepted) Vegetation community response to landscape scale post-fire herbicide (imazapic) application. Invasive Plant Sci ManagGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R Package Version 1:1–23Google Scholar
  3. Beven K, Kirkby MJ (1979) A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrol Sci J 24:43–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bochet E, García-Fayos P, Alborch B, Tormo J (2007) Soil water availability effects on seed germination account for species segregation in semiarid roadslopes. Plant Soil 295:179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JSS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evolut 24:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd CS, Davies KW, Lemos JA (2017) Influence of soil color on seedbed microclimate and seedling demographics of a perennial bunchgrass. Rangel Ecol Manag 70:621–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brabec MM, Germino MJ, Richardson BA (2016) Climate adaption and post-fire restoration of a foundational perennial in cold desert: insights from intraspecific variation in response to weather. J Appl Ecol 54:293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brabec MM, Germino MJ, Shinneman DJ, Pilliod DS, McIlroy SK, Arkle RS (2015) Challenges of establishing big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) in rangeland restoration: effects of herbicide, mowing, whole-community seeding, and sagebrush seed sources. Rangel Ecol Manag 68:432–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brudvig LA, Barak RS, Bauer JT, Caughlin TT, Laughlin DC, Larios L, Matthews JW, Stuble KL, Turley NE, Zirbel CR (2017) Interpreting variation to advance predictive restoration science. J Appl Ecol 54:1018–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burkett LM, Bestelmeyer BT, Tugel AJ (2011) A field guide to pedoderm and pattern classes. Version 2.2. http://jornada.nmsu.edu/files/FieldGuidePedodermPattern.pdf
  11. Chambers JC (2000) Seed movements and seedling fates in disturbed sagebrush steppe ecosystems: implications for restoration. Ecol Appl 10:1400–1413Google Scholar
  12. Chambers JC, Bradley BA, Brown CS, D’Antonio C, Germino MJ, Grace JB, Hardegree SP, Miller RF, Pyke DA (2014) Resilience to stress and disturbance, and resistance to Bromus tectorum L. invasion in cold desert shrublands of western North America. Ecosystems 17:360–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Copeland SM, Munson SM, Pilliod DS, Welty JL, Bradford JB, Butterfield BJ (2017) Long-term trends in restoration and associated land treatments in the southwestern United States. Restor Ecol 26:311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. D’Antonio CM, Vitousek PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:63–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies KW, Bates JD (2017) Restoring big sagebrush after controlling encroaching western juniper with fire: aspect and subspecies effects. Restor Ecol 25:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davies KW, Bates JD, James JJ (2009) Microsite and herbaceous vegetation heterogeneity after burning Artemisia tridentata steppe. Oecologia 159:597–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Davies KW, Boyd CS, Nafus AM (2013) Restoring the sagebrush component in crested wheatgrass–dominated communities. Rangel Ecol Manag 66:472–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De’ath G, Fabricius KE (2000) Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 81:3178–3192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DiCristina K, Germino M (2006) Correlation of neighborhood relationships, carbon assimilation, and water status of sagebrush seedlings establishing after fire. West N Am Nat 66:441–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donato DC, Fontaine JB, Campbell JL, Robinson WD, Kauffman JB, Law BE (2006) Post-wildfire logging hinders regeneration and increases fire risk. Science 311(5759):352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Eiswerth ME, Krauter K, Swanson SR, Zielinski M (2009) Post-fire seeding on Wyoming big sagebrush ecological sites: regression analyses of seeded nonnative and native species densities. J Environ Manag 90:1320–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Germino MJ, Belnap J, Stark JM, Allen EB, Rau BM (2016) Ecosystem impacts of exotic annual invaders in the genus Bromus. In: Germino MJ, Chambers JC, Brown C (eds) Exotic Brome-grasses in arid and semiarid ecosystems of the western US. Springer, Berlin, pp 61–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Germino MJ, Reinhardt K (2014) Desert shrub responses to experimental modification of precipitation seasonality and soil depth: relationship to the two-layer hypothesis and ecohydrological niche. J Ecol 102:989–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hardegree SP, Abatzoglou JT, Brunson MW, Germino MJ, Hegewisch KC, Moffet CA, Pilliod DS, Roundy BA, Boehm AR, Meredith GR (2017) Weather-centric rangeland revegetation planning. Rangel Ecol Manag 71:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hassan MA, West NE (1986) Dynamics of soil seed pools in burned and unburned sagebrush semi-deserts. Ecology 67:269–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoover AN, Germino MJ (2012) A common-garden study of resource-island effects on a native and an exotic, annual grass after fire. Rangel Ecol Manag 65:160–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hulvey KB, Leger EA, Porensky LM, Roche LM, Veblen KE, Fund A, Shaw J, Gornish ES (2017) Restoration islands: at tool for efficiently restoring dryland ecosystems? Restor Ecol. Online firstGoogle Scholar
  28. James JJ, Svejcar TJ, Rinella MJ (2011) Demographic processes limiting seedling recruitment in arid grassland restoration. J Appl Ecol 48:961–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Knutson KC, Pyke DA, Wirth TA, Arkle RS, Pilliod DS, Brooks ML, Chambers JC, Grace JB (2014) Long-term effects of seeding after wildfire on vegetation in Great Basin shrubland ecosystems. J Appl Ecol 51:1414–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McArthur ED, Plummer AP (1978) Biogeography and management of native western shrubs—a case study, section Tridentatae of Artemisia. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs 2:229–243Google Scholar
  31. McCune B, Keon D, Marrs R (2002) Equations for potential annual direct incident radiation and heatload. J Veg Sci 13:603–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nelson ZJ, Weisberg PJ, Kitchen SG (2014) Influence of climate and environment on post-fire recovery of mountain big sagebrush. Int J Wildland Fire 23:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ott JE, Cox RD, Shaw NL (2017) Comparison of postfire seeding practices for wyoming big sagebrush. Rangel Ecol Manag 70:625–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Palmquist KA, Schlaepfer DR, Bradford JB, Lauenroth WK (2016) Mid-latitude shrub steppe plant communities: climate change consequences for soil water resources. Ecology 97:2342–2354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Pilliod DS, Welty JL, Toevs GR (2017) Seventy-five years of vegetation treatments on public rangelands in the Great Basin of North America. Rangelands 39:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prevéy JS, Germino MJ, Huntly NJ, Inouye RS (2010) Exotic plants increase and native plants decrease with loss of foundation species in sagebrush steppe. Plant Ecol 207:39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
  38. Reisner MD, Grace JB, Pyke DA, Doescher PS (2013) Conditions favouring Bromus tectorum dominance of endangered sagebrush steppe ecosystems. J Appl Ecol 50:1039–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rinella MJ, Hammond DH, Bryant A-EM, Kozar BJ (2015) High precipitation and seeded species competition reduce seeded shrub establishment during dryland restoration. Ecol Appl 25:1044–1053CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Rodhouse TJ, Irvine KM, Sheley RL, Smith BS, Hoh S, Esposito DM, Mata-Gonzalez R (2014) Predicting foundation bunchgrass species abundances: model-assisted decision-making in protected-area sagebrush steppe. Ecosphere 5(9):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rottler CM, Burke IC, Palmquist KA, Bradford JB, Lauenroth WK (2017) Reclamation after oil and gas development does not speed up succession or plant community recovery in big sagebrush ecosystems in Wyoming. Restor Ecol 26:114–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sankey JB, Germino MJ, Sankey TT, Hoover AN (2012) Fire effects on the spatial patterning of soil properties in sagebrush steppe, USA: a meta-analysis. Int J Wildland Fire 21:545–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schlaepfer DR, Lauenroth WK, Bradford JB (2014a) Modeling regeneration responses of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) to abiotic conditions. Ecol Model 286:66–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schlaepfer DR, Lauenroth WK, Bradford JB (2014b) Natural regeneration processes in big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata). Rangel Ecol Manag 67:344–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seefeldt SS, Germino MJ, DiCristina K (2007) Prescribed fires in Artemisia tridentata ssp. Vaseyana steppe have minor and transient effects on vegetation cover and composition. Appl Veg Sci 10:249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sólymos P, Lele SR (2016) Revisiting resource selection probability functions and single-visit methods: clarification and extensions. Methods Ecol Evolut 7:196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Therneau TM, Atkinson B, Ripley MB (2010) The rpart packageGoogle Scholar
  48. Thompson JR, Spies TA, Ganio LM (2007) Reburn severity in managed and unmanaged vegetation in a large wildfire. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(25):10743–10748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Wijayratne UC, Pyke DA (2012) Burial increases seed longevity of two Artemisia tridentata (Asteraceae) subspecies. Am J Bot 99:438–447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Geological SurveyForest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science CenterBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations